Effect of a mechanical grooming brush on the behavior and health of recently weaned heifer calves

Tactile, Auditory, and Visual Stimulation as Sensory Enrichment for Dairy Cattle

Several types of enrichment can be used to improve animal welfare. This review summarizes the literature on the use of mechanical brushes, tactile udder stimulation, music, and visual stimuli as enrichment methods for dairy cows. Mechanical brushes and tactile stimulation of the udder have been shown to have a positive effect on milk yield and overall behavioral repertoire, enhancing natural behavior. Classical music reduces stress levels and has similarly been associated with increased milk yield. A slow or moderate tempo (70 to 100 bpm) at frequencies below 70 dB is recommended to have this positive effect. Evidence on the impacts of other types of enrichment, such as visual stimulation through mirrors, pictures, and color lights, or the use of olfactory stimuli, is equivocal and requires further study.

Loss of a grooming enrichment impacts physical, behavioural, and physiological measures of welfare in grazing beef cattle

Pasture-based beef cattle are raised in a range of production environments. Some paddocks may contain trees and other objects that allow for grooming, hence being naturally enriching, whilst others may be barren without these opportunities. Additionally, it is not uncommon for cattle to move between these enriched and barren environments as part of routine management. While the benefits of enrichment are well studied, how this 'enrichment loss' impacts cattle welfare as access to stimuli is removed is unknown. This trial assessed the impacts of the loss of an enriching object (grooming brush) on grazing beef cattle welfare and production characteristics. When grooming brush access was blocked, cattle became dirtier, showed reduced average daily gain, and had elevated faecal cortisol metabolites, although this varied according to the degree of initial individual brush use. Additionally, allogrooming and grooming on other objects were reduced when access to the brush was returned, potentially indicating a rebound effect. These results demonstrate that the loss of adequate grooming objects can impair the overall welfare of grazing cattle; however, further work is needed to determine exactly which natural or artificial objects provide adequate grooming opportunities.

Caring animals and the ways we wrong them

Many nonhuman animals have the emotional capacities to form caring relationships that matter to them, and for their immediate welfare. Drawing from care ethics, we argue that these relationships also matter as objectively valuable states of affairs. They are part of what is good in this world. However, the value of care is precarious in human-animal interactions. Be it in farming, research, wildlife 'management', zoos, or pet-keeping, the prevention, disruption, manipulation, and instrumentalization of care in animals by humans is ubiquitous. We criticize a narrow conception of welfare that, in practice, tends to overlook non-experiential forms of harm that occur when we interfere with caring animals. Additionally, we point out wrongs against caring animals that are not just unaccounted for but denied by even an expansive welfare perspective: The instrumentalization of care and caring animals in systems of use can occur as a harmless wrong that an approach purely focused on welfare may, in fact, condone. We should therefore adopt an ethical perspective that goes beyond welfare in our dealings with caring animals.

Positive Welfare Indicators in Dairy Animals

Nowadays, there is growing interest in positive animal welfare not only from the view of scientists but also from that of society. The consumer demands more sustainable livestock production, and animal welfare is an essential part of sustainability, so there is interest in incorporating positive welfare indicators into welfare assessment schemes and legislation. The aim of this review is to cite all the positive welfare indicators that have been proposed for dairy animals in theory or practice. In total, twenty-four indicators were retrieved. The most promising are exploration, access to pasture, comfort and resting, feeding, and behavioral synchronicity. Qualitative behavioral assessment (QBA), social affiliative behaviors, play, maternal care, ear postures, vocalizations, visible eye white, nasal temperature, anticipation, cognitive bias, laterality, and oxytocin have been also studied in dairy ruminants. QBA is the indicator that is most often used for the on-farm welfare assessment. Among all dairy animals, studies have been performed mostly on cattle, followed by sheep and goats, and finally buffaloes. The research on camel welfare is limited. Therefore, there is a need for further research and official assessment protocols for buffaloes and especially camels.

Impact of Stationary Brush Quantity on Brush Use in Group-Housed Dairy Heifers

Our objectives were to evaluate the effect of stationary brush quantity on brush use and competition in weaned dairy heifers naïve to brushes. Sixty-three Holstein heifers (95 ± 5.7 days old) were housed in groups of eight (with the exception of 1 group of 7) with two or four stationary brushes (n = 4 groups/treatment). Brush-directed behaviors of grooming, oral manipulation, and displacements were recorded continuously for all heifers 0–6, 18–24, 120–126 and 138–144 h after brush exposure. Linear mixed models were used to evaluate the effects of brush quantity and exposure duration. Total brush use and competition were not affected by brush quantity, but heifers with access to more brushes used them for longer bouts, suggesting greater opportunity for uninterrupted use. Total brush use was greater in the first and final 6 h observation periods, which was driven by the greatest duration of oral manipulation and grooming in those respective periods. The continued use of brushes by all heifers in the final period indicates the importance of providing appropriate outlets for these natural behaviors to promote animal welfare. The effect of brush quantity on bout characteristics suggests that brush use was less restricted with four compared to two brushes per eight heifers.

Measuring Calves' Usage of Multiple Environmental Enrichment Objects Provided Simultaneously

This study aims to assess calf usage of five potential enrichment devices provided simultaneously. We used 25 weaned Holstein-Friesian calves housed in groups of five (five replicates), and their behavior was recorded continuously with video cameras. This longitudinal observational study used a pen equipped with a mechanical and fixed brush, cowhide, and horizontal and vertical ropes. Data collected included how many visits each object received per day, the type of object usage, and the duration of the visits. Calves used all five objects at least once, and they used items more during the daytime than at night. Brushes were used mainly for grooming (e.g., rubbing or scratching), while ropes and cowhide for oral interactions (e.g., licking, chewing, and biting), most likely to lack oral stimulations that would naturally be satisfied by suckling and grazing at this age. The objects most frequently used were the mechanical brush and the horizontal rope, and they received the highest number of visits (214.9 and 154.9 bouts/day, respectively). The least chosen object was the stationary brush, which had the lowest number of visits (62.9 bouts/day). The provision of multiple enrichment objects for weaned calves should be considered as they may add complexity and novelty to barren environments.

Stationary brush use in naive dairy heifers

Weaned dairy heifers are often housed in environments with few appropriate outlets for grooming or oral manipulation. Our objective was to characterize brush use by naive heifers, including patterns over time. In phase 1, groups of 4 heifers (n = 13 groups, 146.4 ± 9.1 d old, mean ± standard deviation; SD) were introduced to a bedded pack pen with 4 wall-mounted brushes (25.4 × 6.0 cm with 3.8-cm-long bristles). On d 1, 2, and 6 of exposure, continuous video recordings were used to observe 2 focal heifers per group for brush use (oral manipulation, grooming, and the sum of total brush use; all averaged at the group level). Latency to use a brush upon entering the pen was 3.4 ± 4.9 min (mean ± SD; range: 0.1 to 17.8 min among individuals). Heifers used the brushes for oral manipulation (39.7 ± 17.5% of brush use, mean ± SD) and grooming (60.3 ± 17.5%), primarily of their heads (89.9 ± 5.4% of grooming). In phase 2, heifers were moved in pairs (n = 13 pairs/treatment) to freestall pens either with (brush treatment) or without (control) brushes mounted inside the stalls for the first 5 d of phase 2 (d 8-12 of the study); on the last day (d 13 of the study), brushes were provided in both treatments. On d 8 (brush treatment) and 13 (both treatments), one focal heifer/pen was recorded for the same behaviors as in phase 1. Linear mixed models were used to evaluate brush use patterns across days (phase 1: d 1, 2, and 6; phase 2 brush treatment: d 8 vs. 13) and between treatments on d 13. In phase 1, brush use was greatest on d 1 [45.9 min; 95% confidence interval (CI): 33.2-63.3 min, back-transformed from natural-log values], decreased on d 2 (25.0 min, 95% CI: 18.4-34.0 min), but then remained steady until d 6 (21.0 min, 95% CI: 15.4-28.5 min); the initial reduction in total brush use was due to changes in grooming, but oral manipulation remained relatively static. In phase 2, heifers in the brush treatment showed similar usage on d 8 versus d 13 (3.8 vs. 3.7 min, 95% CI: 1.9-6.8 vs. 1.9-6.5 min). Compared with heifers with continuous brush access on d 8-12, those in the control treatment showed more brush use on d 13, both for oral manipulation (6.6 vs. 2.5 min, 95% CI: 3.8-11.1 vs. 1.3-4.5 min) and grooming (3.5 vs. 1.2 min, 95% CI: 1.9-5.7 vs. 0.5-2.3 min). Our study is the first to characterize stationary brush use in weaned dairy heifers. We conclude that, despite lacking previous experience, heifers use brushes for both grooming and oral manipulation.

Accelerometer systems as tools for health and welfare assessment in cattle and pigs - A review

Welfare assessment has traditionally been performed by direct observation by humans, providing information at only selected points in time. Recently, this assessment method has been questioned, as 'Precision Livestock Farming' technologies may be able to deliver more valid, reliable and feasible real-time data at the individual level and serve as early monitoring systems for animal welfare. The aim of this paper is to describe how accelerometers can be used for welfare assessment based on the principles of the Welfare Quality assessment protocol. Algorithm development is based mainly on the detection of behavioural traits. So far, high accuracies have been found for movement and resting behaviours in cows and pigs, while algorithm development for feeding and drinking behaviours in pigs lag behind progress in cows where valid algorithms are already available. Welfare studies have used accelerometer technology to address the effects on behaviour of diet, daily cycle, enrichment, housing, social mixing, oestrus, lameness and disease. Additional aspects to consider before a decision is made upon its use in research and in practical applications include battery life and sensor location. While accelerometer systems for cows are already being used by farmers, application in pigs has mainly remained at the research level.